On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 11:37:30PM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote:> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:15:56PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:> > > > b) (no -bs) "sizeof(foo)" rather than "sizeof (foo)"> > > > I can't really see the logic in this, though I know a lot of people do> > it. I try to stay consistent, thus I do:> > > > if ()> > for ()> > case ()> > while ()> > sizeof ()> > typeof ()> > > > since they're all parts of the language, rather than> > functions/macros or invocations of such.> > As you say, this is religion. Secondly, there need not be any logic.> But thirdly, if you insist: The first four are about flow of control.> We all agree they have spaces - it is Linux kernel standard.> > On the other hand, sizeof is an arithmetical expression, often part> of larger expressions. Now expressions like> sizeof (*foo)+1> might be confusing, and> sizeof(*foo) + 1> shows more clearly what the parsing is.

You should at least compare apples to apples, that is:

sizeof (*foo) + 1

vs

sizeof(*foo) + 1

But I guess that was just a typo? Of course, since the ()'s are uselesshere anyway, and doesn't really bring any added bonus, we end up with

sizeof *foo + 1

vs

sizeof*foo + 1

and I'd say the latter looks rather confusing, if not for anything elsebecause

sizeoffoo

would be invalid code, while

sizeof foo

is perfectly valid.

This is the same as

return *foo;

vs

return*foo;

I personally regard the former to be preferable, but it's it's apreference, not a something I'd die over.